In the letter, Avery points out what he says are false statements made by the OCA. He specifically mentions five different points in the OCA letter and calls them inaccurate information. I've posted them below for your viewing pleasure.
But it's the last two paragraphs that really hammer home how the CCA is feeling:
Mr. McGillis, your actions since becoming the President of the OCA have appeared on numerous occasions to be an attempt to sever the relationship with the CCA. For no apparent reason, you seem to have decided to vilify the CCA Board. Like the OCA Board of Directors, please note that the CCA Board of Governors is a group of dedicated volunteers.
The CCA Board would like to appeal to your better nature and ask that you focus your efforts on effectively running the OCA rather than continuing to spite us. After all, the OCA has a large role to play in the growth of curling across Canada. We are hopeful that at some point this can be done in a cooperative spirit.
Here are the five statements contained in the OCA document with which the CCA disagrees and comments from Avery.
“The decision to place us in this status was made as a result of their receipt of a confidential
internal OCA Board communication containing several comments they found “inaccurate and
defamatory” which had been forwarded to them anonymously.”
Comments: The original communication at the heart of this matter was sent to more than thirty
people, which hardly constitutes something one would consider confidential. Further, libelous
statements are still libelous despite any attempts to conceal them under the guise of confidentiality. These are statements, which you have subsequently formally apologized for and
retracted in full.
“Along with this there were restrictions, the OCA was not to communicate nor receive
communications from the CCA.”
Comments: This statement is inaccurate. While some communication privileges were taken
away from the OCA, there was never a ban on the OCA’s communication with the CCA. In fact,
the CCA was in communication with either the entire OCA or members of the OCA Board
several times during the period when the OCA was not in good standing. Communication
between the OCA and CCA was clearly necessary for the investigation and reinstatement of
good standing, so your suggestion that it was banned is blatantly incorrect.
“We fully complied with the investigation in the hopes that this would be quickly resolved. The
CCA’s investigation dragged into the New Year. In January we were advised that their
investigation was complete and an apology was required.”
Comments: This statement is misleading and does not present an accurate picture. The
investigation committee made every effort to expedite this process; however, it appeared to the
investigation committee as well as to the CCA Board that you made active attempts to
significantly and purposely prolong the process. For example, one of your Board members
declined the CCA investigation committee’s interview, stating, “At this time the OCA Board has
asked for me not to do the Interview pending advisement at our next Board meeting on Jan.12
2014.” This revelation came only after a delay of several weeks and the investigation
committee’s exhaustive attempts to accommodate the individual’s schedule. I would remind you
that the investigation committee has a paper trail of multiple other reasons that you or selected
others interviewed from the OCA (not all interviewees) indicated for reasons to delay or alleged
If the investigation “dragged”, as you put it, it did so because of the multitude of delays by a few
of the OCA interviewees and despite the CCA Board’s efforts to move the process along. As a
result of the constant delays, the investigation committee decided to expedite the remaining
process by concluding the investigation without the remaining interviews.
“Although we had not seen the results of the investigation and with no appeal process available
to us we issued an apology in early February. Our initial apology was not approved by the CCA
Comments: While you did not see the specific notes kept by the Investigation Committee, you
did see the results of the investigation. The Board found that the six statements made by you
contained in your communication were inaccurate and defamatory, and that you did not provide
any basis for the comments. When the investigation committee asked you to provide the factual
basis for your statements, you and the immediate past president indicated that these were
“common knowledge” and sentiments held in common with your Board of Directors. Others
interviewed by the investigation committee denied those assertions, and advised they were
unaware of the origin of the statements. Therefore, the CCA Board’s only logical conclusion
was that the statements were inaccurate and defamatory.
The refusal to approve the first letter was simply a product of your obstinacy. The CCA Board
clearly communicated the required components of the apology letter that would reinstate the
OCA as a member in good standing. The CCA Board clearly required that you explicitly
apologize for the six unfounded statements. Your first attempt at an apology apologized for the
concern the statements caused and the time and inconvenience experienced by the CCA Board
but no apology for the actual statements or any retraction therein.
“Our hopes that this matter would be quickly resolved dragged on, but through no intention of
Comments: Any extent to which this matter “dragged on” unnecessarily is the fault of the OCA
alone. The CCA Board indicated in early January what was required of the OCA. The CCA
Board further explicitly committed to call an emergency meeting to reinstate the OCA as soon as
it met the conditions. The CCA Board kept its commitment, reinstating the OCA within twentyfour
hours of receipt of an acceptable apology (though the Chair of the Board was in Sochi at the